News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Lisp Did Not and Never Will Gain Enough Traction. Parent comment

Re:Why Lisp Did Not and Never Will Gain Enough Traction by drmrkela on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @09:12PM (#4383923)
To be honest that Python list comprehension is really hard for me to internalize.

I find Ruby way much more natural.

xx.select { |x| bar(x) }

Even Clojure is better

(filter (fn[x](bar x)) xx)

or

(filter #(bar %) xx)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Lisp Did Not and Never Will Gain Enough Traction by wonderzombie on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @01:50AM (#4384782)
Sure, I do, too. Ruby is one of the languages that made me experience how expressive the higher-order function pattern really is.

That said, in Python, you have to take what you can get, though. And generally I expect more people are familiar with Python than Haskell. Probably I should've used Ruby. Oh well.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Lisp Did Not and Never Will Gain Enough Traction by osener on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @10:01PM (#4384062)
You don't need that anonymous function in Clojure, (filter bar xx) is enough just like Haskell.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Lisp Did Not and Never Will Gain Enough Traction by drmrkela on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @02:41AM (#4384896)
You are right. Thanks.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Lisp Did Not and Never Will Gain Enough Traction by wonderzombie on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @01:51AM (#4384784)
BTW, friendly tip: if you want code formatting, try using four spaces of indent. You might only need two, actually. Let's see. Two spaces:

  filter foo xx
Four spaces:

    filter foo xx
[ Parent | on HN ]